Over the past two days the National Committee of the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) met for our annual mid-year retreat, an important gathering where we come together to review progress and renew commitments to our work as active optimists in the local and global food sovereignty movement. We are farmers and allies from across Australia, all committed to working collectively to democratically determine our own food and agriculture systems, and for everyone’s right to nourishing and culturally-appropriate food produced in ethical and ecologically-sound ways.

We reviewed our strategies to continue working with state governments to reform the planning schemes to better enable small-scale agroecological farming. We celebrated our victories in Victoria, where we are nearing agreement on much-improved land use guidelines that acknowledge the lower risk of small-scale pastured livestock farming compared with our industrial intensive counterparts. We also celebrated the Victorian Government’s recognition of AFSA as the voice for small-scale farmers, and their public commitment to working with us, as well as to the new Artisanal Agriculture and Produce program launched by Minister for Agriculture Jaala Pulford at Cloud 9 Winery recently, which will provide $2 million in funding to support small-scale farms.

We also look forward to working more closely with the NSW State Government as they work through their planning reforms, and by participating in the upcoming hearings for the Parliamentary Inquiry into Fresh Food Pricing.

Internationally, we have been very busy with our comrades in the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) at the General Assembly in South Africa in March, renewing our solidarity and global strategies to radically transform the food system. We were delighted to have the Director General of the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) request a copy of the 2015 book Fair Food, which has contributions from many of our current and former committee members, and his subsequent gracious expression of appreciation for our contributions at the Asia Pacific Regional Conference in Fiji in April. And we look forward to participating in the regional conference of La Via Campesina in Timor Leste at the end of July.

The Committee developed positions on the increasingly topical subjects of high tech food such as lab-grown meat and a sugar tax that we will test with all members at our annual Food Sovereignty Convergence in Canberra on 15/16 October 2018. We reject the productivist paradigm and specious ‘feed the world’ narratives from philanthrocapitalists such as Richard Branson and Bill Gates (and their partners – Cargill and Tyson – two of the biggest industrial meat producers in the world) that there is a need for technocratic solutions to technology-driven problems.

We renewed our strength to fight all undemocratic false solutions to the problems of industrial food systems, including the continued rise of genetic modification, and our commitment to promote seed sovereignty and water sovereignty for all.

The Committee discussed and lauded the efforts of small-scale livestock farmers across Australia who are taking control of the means of production and building micro-abattoirs to close the loop on the entirety of a highest welfare system of raising animals. From Queensland to Victoria, Tasmania to WA, farmers are building abattoirs on their farms and cooperatively in their regions to regain control of the value chain and ensure their animals are slaughtered in the most humane way possible.

Some of the AFSA National Committee members are today enroute to the annual gathering of small-scale agroecological farmers and allies – Deep Winter – where hundreds will come together to share knowledge farmer to farmer, and nourish each other as we feast on the collective bounty of delicious ethical and ecologically-sound produce.

We look forward to the second annual Slow Meat Australia Symposium to be held in Daylesford, Victoria again in September, where farmers, chefs, butchers and allies will discuss, debate, and devour the movement to help everyone eat better meat, less often.

The year will culminate with the fourth annual Food Sovereignty Convergence in Canberra on 15/16 October, where Australia’s leading activists will share their successes and failures, their worries and wishes, and again renew our commitment to working democratically towards a food sovereign future.

It is no longer enough to simply vote with your dollar, nor even to grow food ethically and ecologically. We must be more than connected to food production – there is so much at stake that we must collectivise, mobilise and act for the future we want to see and be. Join us!

Recently, Food Standards of Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) approved an application (A1138) to permit products containing GM golden rice to be sold in Australia and New Zealand.

We are asking Ministers on the Ministerial Forum of Food Regulation to call for a review of the approval in order to safeguard community health and food sovereignty in Australia and globally. Head over to the campaign page here to add your name to the letter.

What is GM Golden Rice?

Golden rice is a genetically engineered line of rice that produces pro-vitamin A (beta-carotene). It was developed by International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) as a technocratic, quick fix for vitamin A deficiency (VAD) occurring in some countries of the ‘global south’.

What’s the big deal?

1. Golden rice is not as effective as a healthy, varied diet and has less Vitamin A than other food sources such as carrots.

Vitamin A deficiency, and malnutrition in general, cannot be addressed through golden rice or other forms of genetic engineering. It is a socio-economic issue that requires structural changes to improve standards of living and ensure people have access to a diverse range of healthy, nutritious and culturally appropriate foods. Further, a single carrot contains more vitamin A than nearly 4kg of cooked GM golden rice. Vitamin A degrades in storage, which means a person would need to eat 31 kg of golden rice within 75 days after harvest to get the same amount as in a handful of fresh parsley.

2. FSANZ approval will lead to the production of GM Golden Rice in the Philippines, thereby undermining local food sovereignty and democracy.

By permitting golden rice to be sold, FSANZ is thereby supporting the global GM regime that undermines regional food sovereignty. Filipino farmer-led group, MASIPAG have spoken out about how Australia’s decision will mean the Philippines will automatically approve the production of GM rice without democratic participation. They note that there are no studies comparing this rice with locally available Vitamin A rich food or with the government programme of supplements. GM golden rice is set to benefit major corporations, like Syngenta, rather than farmers and communities. Filipino farmers, along with farmers in India and Bangladesh, could be seduced into growing GM golden rice under unfair contracts, rejecting traditional varieties that are nutritionally diverse and suitable for the environment.

GM golden rice will not be directly imported into Australia but it has been approved so that a recall is not required if it is found in imported rice. Its status as a contaminant means GM golden rice will also not require labelling. The Australian consumer will be unaware of how much GM golden rice is in their food and what that means for the food’s nutritional properties. We ask for thorough labelling and complete transparency so that consumers are fully informed.

4. FSANZ have not adequately assessed the safety of GM golden rice.

The application to permit the sale of golden rice in Australia has been assessed using unpublished applicant data. FSANZ did not receive, or request, any ingestion/feeding studies with the application, so there are no publications on whether GM rice would cause allergic reactions or even anaphylaxis in children, immune compromised people or the elderly. The Golden Rice crop is unstable, as is shown by the wildly varying b-carotene yields. FSANZ cannot do an adequate assessment on nutritional safety due to this instability, especially in the levels of nutrients and anti-nutrients.

What do we want?

Genetic modification is a powerful technology with potential detriments not yet fully understood, and it should not be permitted in our food system. GM foods are wholly inappropriate given we already have more than enough food to ‘feed the world’ and the means to produce healthy food, utilizing regenerative, agroecological practices.

We are asking the Ministers on the Ministerial Forum of Food Regulation to review the FSANZ approval of GM golden rice (A1138) under section 21 of the FSANZ Act. We ask for comprehensive 90 day feeding trials, peer-reviewed evidence that the GM golden rice can be stored and cooked without nutrient loss, and data demonstrating that the GM golden rice produces a stable level of Vitamin A. We also demand complete transparency and process based labelling so that all products containing potential traces of GM Golden Rice, including highly processed foods like rice bran oil, are labelled clearly.

It is essential to have a sustainable food system; people want healthy, safe food to feed themselves and their family. The government is putting our food at increased risk by considering the deregulation of controversial gene editing techniques which may have a catastrophic impact on our already fragile food system.

Twenty years ago, industrial agriculture released GM crops. One type is engineered to withstand sprays of herbicide, usually glyphosate based ones like Roundup, while the other type produces toxins that kill insects by destroying their stomachs.

There have been large numbers of claims and counter claims about the success or otherwise of these crops. It is frequently framed as a scientific discussion with neither side able to resolve the controversy. Many people are unaware that approval of these GM crops is based almost exclusively on unpublished studies done by the GM companies. There have been minimal animal studies and no human trials.

These growing areas are experiencing increases in birth defects, cancers and other illnesses 3. A recent UN report says pesticides aren’t necessary to feed the world, in fact, they are killing 200,000 people a year by acute poisoning and causing numerous diseases 4. Pollinators, including bees, are also killed by pesticides and without pollination the production of many crops collapses. Only a minor increase in yield is due to GM breeding, the majority of increases are due to conventional breeding and changed farming practices.

Now the seed breeding industry, which is dominated by chemical companies’ like Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and Du Pont 6 says that new breeding technologies, like gene editing and CRISPR, will solve current agricultural problems. Industry claims that, although these techniques fall under the Cartagena Protocol and Codex definitions of biotechnology, they are not GM. I refer to these techniques as GM2 to highlight that they the next generation of GM breeding.

I have been following the GM debate and the relevant science for over 20 years.

Back then no one knew that a gene could produce several different proteins, or that many genes working together could produce one protein. It was assumed that one gene only ever made one protein. We didn’t know there was an epigenome that directs the expression of genes or that DNA is not the master molecule but that all parts of the cell influence each other. GM2 may say that it is only ‘editing’ the existing genes. It has been compared to cutting and pasting text in a computer. Genes and the cells that contain them are not a linear story line but complex interlinked networks that act, repeat and alter what they do depending on what every other part of the cell is doing.

GM2 is a fantastically interesting and useful set of tools that are also extremely powerful. But how genes operate needs more study and GM2 ‘editing’ is an activity that should be confined to the lab and not used to produce food. Decisions about their use needs to be subject to democratic discussion and transparency. Considering their power, they need to be regulated.

The level of regulation of GM2 is currently under consideration, although almost no one knows this. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator has asked for submissions on what it calls a Technical Review 7. FOI requests have revealed that the OGTR has been in consultation with the biotechnology industry for at least two years asking them to “make the case” for deregulation of these technologies. This means that plants, foods, animals and microbes developed using GM2 techniques would enter the food system with no safety testing, assessment, labelling or post market monitoring.

To end on a more positive note, it is exciting that if we change the way we grow what we eat, we can heal our warming planet. Ways in which the earth is already benefiting from a new form of agriculture were outlined in The Guardian last year:

A study published recently by the US National Academy of Sciences claims that regenerative farming can sequester 3% of our global carbon emissions. An article in Science suggests it could be up to 15%. And new research from the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania, although not yet peer-reviewed, says sequestration rates could be as high as 40%. The same report argues that if we apply regenerative techniques to the world’s pastureland as well, we could capture more than 100% of global emissions. In other words, regenerative farming may be our best shot at actually cooling the planet. 8

Huge improvements to our soils and lives can be made. Regenerative farming allowed fig trees to begin fruiting within four months in salty, arid soils two km from the Dead Sea in Jordan 9. The degraded Loess Plateau 10, known as the cradle of Chinese civilization, was brought back to life using the same regenerative techniques. Both projects used trenches to capture rainfall, so it soaked into the earth, allowing plants to survive. As the plants grew they shielded the ground, slowing evaporation and enabling more plants to thrive. When the plants die they return their carbon to the soil. The carbon feeds the organisms in the soil that flourish and encourage more plant growth. The land is enlivened and animals, birds, insects and streams return.

Once we have protected the safety of our food we need to liberate it from the industrial system. Many farmers, people, businesses and organisations are already working towards this. Shoppers can support the farmers, food growers, shops, swaps,community gardens, seed banks, bee keepers and local food producers who are improving the world through agro-ecological methods. We also need to work together to effect change and ensure that political will, money and research time accelerates this transition to regenerative agriculture.

Charles Benbrook 2012, Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe Bridging Science and Regulation at the Regional and European Level201224:24 DOI: 10.1186/2190-4715-24-24

Greens MP Mark Parnell's bill to extend the moratorium on growing GM crops in South Australia until 2025 has passed the Upper House. It is expected to pass the Lower House. Jay Weatherill's Labour Government is supportive of the ban. It creates a “significant price premium for our state’s farmers compared to GM crops grown in other states” and consumers benefit too.

Farmers in the US are suing Monsanto, the patent owner of most GM crops and the creator of Roundup. They claim to have developed cancer due to using the weedkiller. The court case is revealing internal Monsanto documents showing how they ghost write science, have paid scientists to promote their interests while appearing to be independent, are sabotaging regulation and are creating attacks on independent scientists and bodies who show their product causes harm.

Existing GM crops have failed but new GM techniques have been developed including gene editing or CRISPR. Three reviews into regulation are currently underway in Australia. The industry wants full deregulation meaning GM microbes, plants, animals, fish, trees and humans would require no oversight, pre-market testing, labelling or monitoring. The reviews are taking place over summer and it is essential that these techniques are regulated.

Join Friends of the Earth and help regulate new GM techniques on animals, plants, humans, crops, trees and microbes. ​

Three reviews on GM technologies in Australia will have huge effects on our food, health and environment:

Forums on the Review of the national Gene Tech Scheme are in Sydney and Adelaide this week and other capital cities later. Register here. This review has the potential to: remove the ability for States to have GM Moratoriums, remove GM labelling requirements, avoid any pre-market approval by using a product instead of process based regulation and allow GM contamination in Organic food.

OGTR review of the rules on new GMOs.Sign this petition to ask the Assistant Health Minister to regulate them. New GM techniques including CRISPR, RNA interference could be used to create GM animals, microbes, crop plants, fish, humans, trees etc. The Gene Technology Act 2000 defines gene technology as "any technique for the modification of genes or other genetic material" therefore all GM techniques and their products should be regulated. This review proposes deregulating the most popular new GM techniques. It would mean no pre-market testing, no register of what is GM and no labelling. Farmers would not know if the seed they are using was produced using these techniques or not. There is no history of safe use for these techniques. For example, CRISPR was first used for gene editing in 2013 yet it could be in our food, lives and environment with no oversight.These new techniques are as unpredictable and hazardous as the old GM. Scientists have stated that these techniques should be regulated as GM. IFOAM, the international organic body wants regulation as well. Last year the US Intelligence community’s annual worldwide threat assessment report found these new gene editing techniques to be “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.” More information on these techniques are in this fact sheet and longer report here.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is deciding whether to regulate new GM foods. FSANZ is conducting a review into whether it will require pre-market approvals for the new GM breeding techniques. It says there will be a public consultation before the review is completed mid 2018.

It is essential that the public has a voice in these discussions and that these techniques are strongly regulated.

If we see biotech as part of a small farmer's 'toolbox', then we must ask what it is we are 'fixing':

Ensuring resilience in the face of climate change

Ensuring smallholders’ livelihoods are maintained & promoted

Ensuring everyone has access to nutritious and culturally-appropriate food produced in ethical and ecologically sound ways, and their right to democratically determine their own food and agriculture systems.

The focus of our discussion here was proposed to be on “sustainable” “food systems” for “small farmers” not “high yield” to generate “more money” from “small pieces of land.” And yet the meeting has presented many solutions that are still in the lab, and products with very initial results. The current supply of food already exceeds demand but there are serious issues around good governance and equitable distribution of food. Merely securing a high yield of a few select crops does not solve the problem of hunger nor secure livelihoods for smallholders, and leads to high levels of post-harvest spoilage and food waste.

There has been a lot of discussion about what we mean by biotechnology, and yet the majority of the focus of the conference has been on GMO products. It is malicious and deceptive to refer to GM crops as "biotech crops".

Those technologies that manipulate DNA artificially increase corporate control over seeds, diminish rich, diverse diets of local communities, promote monoculture, increase biosafety risks to health and environment, and need high investment and complicated regulatory frameworks which many countries lack. We ask those from the private sector who are calling for international acceptance of their products once approved in one country whether they are prepared to accept global liability for their products once disseminated?

We’d like to remind the group that 80% of the world’s food is produced by small farmers and farmer autonomy is critical to maintaining current and future food security and food sovereignty for everyone. We reject solutions that increase the cost of production for farmers due to the high cost of inputs from transnational corporations. We respect farmers as true in-situ innovators and not as passive consumers of the ‘biotech toolbox’.

All present should keep in mind the FAO Policy on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples which includes Indigenous rights to:

Self-determination;

Free, Prior and Informed Consent;

Participation and collaboration;

Rights over land and other resources; and

Gender equality.

Governments and scientists must take a holistic view of addressing the negative consequences of industrialised agriculture and avoid a ‘bandaids on cancer’ approach when it is imperative to address the causes.

Rather than being distracted by the shiny technocratic solutions of the GMO industry, FAO should continue its important work on promoting farmers’ access to native and locally adapted seeds and breeds, markets and value chains, and on promoting agroecology as the best way to feed the world and face the challenges of climate change.